|
Something I've been thinking about, and just want to hear other thoughts/opinions:
We spend a ton of time, and massive sums of money, researching the major diseases/killers: cancer, diabetes and heart disease.
Which isn't a bad thing, for obvious reasons.
That said, there is something I don't understand, and that is that by FAR the biggest risk factor in all the major killers is age: Cancer is quite rare in people younger than 30, and the risk increases dramatically for the next 30 years of life. The same is true for heart disease, as the risk of CVD is very low for persons under 30, and actually increases 7 fold from 45 to 75.
With that in mind I fail to understand is why almost no money is allocated then to the preventative approach: Geroscience/senescence (aging) research. It's great to learn how to treat the disease once it is there...but why are we making essentially no effort to preventing CVD/cancer/diabetes in the first place?
|
|
|
If you asked the average person whether or not we will 'solve' aging, 99% of the time they would say no. Money isnt allocated because it isnt considered plausible, whether thats true or not.
|
On December 17 2013 16:20 Dazed_Spy wrote:
If you asked the average person whether or not we will 'solve' aging, 99% of the time they would say no. Money isnt allocated because it isnt considered plausible, whether thats true or not.
This is the commonly held belief, but it isn't really true. It's quite probable we will get a good handle on aging, possibly within this century, not to mention there is biological precedent for this as there are already animals that do not age.
That said, I would think corporations would be a little more educated in general than the masses and be willing to allocate funding for something that holds tremendous promise.
One final thought is that we don't necessarily have to "solve" aging just to improve our knowledge of these major diseases. It's probably a simpler task to figure out what about aging increases the risk for cancer, and develop treatment methods that slow or arrest that than it is to entirely eliminate aging itself.
|
In some cases diseases can't be prevented. I'm one of the very rare cases who's born with diabetes type 1, to give you an example.
|
On December 17 2013 17:09 gleann wrote:
In some cases diseases can't be prevented. I'm one of the very rare cases who's born with diabetes type 1, to give you an example.
No doubt.
Which is why I definitely think you cannot ignore treating the diseases (though as our knowledge of genetics improves diseases like type-1 diabetes can probably be treated that way) by any means. What throws me is that the focus is much closer to 99.9 to 0.01, rather than 50/50, or 80/20 or w/e
|
Hm... Let me just say that from the purely economical point of view, solving the entire aging problem once and for all isn't nearly as beneficial as endless trying to cope with it that creates jobs and profits for pharmacy, cosmetology, dietetics and couple other big business branches. In other words - those, who should spend the big money on such research are usually those who make money out of the current state of affairs.
Another thing is that practical aging prevention doesn't seem possible without high-level genetic engineering. I suppose that this would first take hundreds or even thousands of quite horrific health experiments on living people, since as far as we know, biological immortality is somehow connected to the way cancer cells are reproducing. So there's a gigantic moral dillema in the implementation of this research, if it's ever to be conducted.
|
I actually agree, perhaps you could do an initiative with your neighborhood in aiding efforts for prevention of such diseases through healthy lifestyle and diet?
You could do it academically -proving xxx fruits and vegetables work or proving xxx methods of lifestyle will allow lower chances-
or being pro-active and trying to spread the message?
|
On December 17 2013 16:32 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 16:20 Dazed_Spy wrote:
If you asked the average person whether or not we will 'solve' aging, 99% of the time they would say no. Money isnt allocated because it isnt considered plausible, whether thats true or not. This is the commonly held belief, but it isn't really true. It's quite probable we will get a good handle on aging, possibly within this century, not to mention there is biological precedent for this as there are already animals that do not age. That said, I would think corporations would be a little more educated in general than the masses and be willing to allocate funding for something that holds tremendous promise. One final thought is that we don't necessarily have to "solve" aging just to improve our knowledge of these major diseases. It's probably a simpler task to figure out what about aging increases the risk for cancer, and develop treatment methods that slow or arrest that than it is to entirely eliminate aging itself.
Look the biggest problem in terms of biology when it comes to aging is cell
/DNA deterioration. Every time a new generation of cells is created some of the DNA cuts off and when that reaches the part of the DNA that is actually being used the cell shuts down. This is unavoidable. Everybody has a different amount of this "unusable" DNA ready to be chipped off. So you could theoretically extend the length of the chromosome before birth, but since (I assume) you've already been born + science isn't capable of doing anything of the sort at the moment you are out of luck.
The majority of things that could probably be done to significantly extend human life would all only be plausable pre-birth
|
On December 17 2013 18:03 wingpawn wrote:
Hm... Let me just say that from the purely economical point of view, solving the entire aging problem once and for all isn't nearly as beneficial as endless trying to cope with it that creates jobs and profits for pharmacy, cosmetology, dietetics and couple other big business branches. In other words - those, who should spend the big money on such research are usually those who make money out of the current state of affairs.
Complete misinterpretation of economics. No one is going to avoid researching a potentially trillion dollar cure out of some conspiratorial notion that less effective treatments will net them more cash. If a couple dolts did that they would simply be out competed in the market. That said, we dont have anything resembling a free market for healthcare, so who knows.
|
On December 17 2013 21:35 Kingsky wrote:
I actually agree, perhaps you could do an initiative with your neighborhood in aiding efforts for prevention of such diseases through healthy lifestyle and diet?
You could do it academically -proving xxx fruits and vegetables work or proving xxx methods of lifestyle will allow lower chances-
or being pro-active and trying to spread the message?
Again, while this kind of stuff is good...it is not what I am talking about.
Ultimately, no matter how well you eat you get older which is the #1 risk factor all the major diseases. I'm talking about understanding what it is about aging itself that makes one more vulnerable to those three diseases and doing our best to combat that.
On December 17 2013 22:20 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 16:32 L_Master wrote:On December 17 2013 16:20 Dazed_Spy wrote:
If you asked the average person whether or not we will 'solve' aging, 99% of the time they would say no. Money isnt allocated because it isnt considered plausible, whether thats true or not. This is the commonly held belief, but it isn't really true. It's quite probable we will get a good handle on aging, possibly within this century, not to mention there is biological precedent for this as there are already animals that do not age. That said, I would think corporations would be a little more educated in general than the masses and be willing to allocate funding for something that holds tremendous promise. One final thought is that we don't necessarily have to "solve" aging just to improve our knowledge of these major diseases. It's probably a simpler task to figure out what about aging increases the risk for cancer, and develop treatment methods that slow or arrest that than it is to entirely eliminate aging itself. Look the biggest problem in terms of biology when it comes to aging is cell /DNA deterioration. Every time a new generation of cells is created some of the DNA cuts off and when that reaches the part of the DNA that is actually being used the cell shuts down. This is unavoidable. Everybody has a different amount of this "unusable" DNA ready to be chipped off. So you could theoretically extend the length of the chromosome before birth, but since (I assume) you've already been born + science isn't capable of doing anything of the sort at the moment you are out of luck. The majority of things that could probably be done to significantly extend human life would all only be plausable pre-birth
It sounds like you are referring to telomeres. There is some truth to what you are saying, which is that when the telomere becomes to short cells do seem to stop diving (which is highly relevant for cancer cells). However, it is very unclear exactly how important telomeres are in actual causing aging, or are they just a bi-product of aging? Some good examples of this are mice, which have longer telomeres than humans, and some frog species such as Xenopus laevis in which great variations in telemere length are found as well as shortening of telomere length from parent to offspring, both having no discernable effect on the rate of aging.
In short, it is very much up for debate whether or not telomeres are a significant cause of aging, or just a consequence of it.
As far as the length of telomeres, science is actually able to do quite a bit. An enzyme known as telomerase actually can add BP to the end of chromosomes and extend telomere length. The issue with this currently is that higher telomerase activity is associated with even greater risks of cancer.
This conversation is actually going a little more in the direction of immortality discussion, which will I find it very interesting, is not what this post is about. We don't have to become immortal/stop aging just to become better at preventing cancer/CVD/diabetes. Just knowing more about the aging process, and what specific things increase the risks for these disease will likely open up many new treatments for them, well before the point we are talking about human immortality.
|
But people like having children.
|
On December 18 2013 03:30 HolyExlxF wrote:
But people like having children.
This IS going to be an issue at some point. Obviously if we start talking lifespans of 1000+ years it's going to be an immediate issue.
But even at current rate of population increase and general medical increases...it won't be too long before we are truly facing the issue of control population size or deplete resources. In other words, we are gonna face that issue any way. Better medical care is just going to make that happen faster.
|
On December 18 2013 01:35 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 18:03 wingpawn wrote:
Hm... Let me just say that from the purely economical point of view, solving the entire aging problem once and for all isn't nearly as beneficial as endless trying to cope with it that creates jobs and profits for pharmacy, cosmetology, dietetics and couple other big business branches. In other words - those, who should spend the big money on such research are usually those who make money out of the current state of affairs.
Complete misinterpretation of economics. No one is going to avoid researching a potentially trillion dollar cure out of some conspiratorial notion that less effective treatments will net them more cash. If a couple dolts did that they would simply be out competed in the market. That said, we dont have anything resembling a free market for healthcare, so who knows.
I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that lab research - if conducted - would settle for a less effective solution. I'm saying that the lack of solution we have right now generates much greater cash flow than the hypothetical "Eden" we would arrive into if this was invented. Of course, there's also a third, middle-ground scenario, where only few individuals can afford the immortality potion. In that case, I would expect a period of unprecedented tyrany of immortal caste over the rest of humanity.
Imagine you had damage-proof, indestructible car. Would you ever visit a repair shop again?
|
On December 18 2013 03:53 wingpawn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2013 01:35 Dazed_Spy wrote:On December 17 2013 18:03 wingpawn wrote:
Hm... Let me just say that from the purely economical point of view, solving the entire aging problem once and for all isn't nearly as beneficial as endless trying to cope with it that creates jobs and profits for pharmacy, cosmetology, dietetics and couple other big business branches. In other words - those, who should spend the big money on such research are usually those who make money out of the current state of affairs.
Complete misinterpretation of economics. No one is going to avoid researching a potentially trillion dollar cure out of some conspiratorial notion that less effective treatments will net them more cash. If a couple dolts did that they would simply be out competed in the market. That said, we dont have anything resembling a free market for healthcare, so who knows. I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that lab research - if conducted - would settle for a less effective solution. I'm saying that the lack of solution we have right now generates much greater cash flow than the hypothetical "Eden" we would arrive into if this was invented. Of course, there's also a third, middle-ground scenario, where only few individuals can afford the immortality potion. In that case, I would expect a period of unprecedented tyrany of immortal caste over the rest of humanity. Imagine you had damage-proof, indestructible car. Would you ever visit a repair shop again? Ah, alright, I thought you were prescribing that as the cause of the lack of research. And I agree at least in part, I've read that one potential solution to the age problem is simply getting better at repairing the damage after the fact. If we can actually do that, it would be a huge cash cow, and eventually the costs would be lowered at least to where the middle class could afford.
|
What about aging increases the risk for cancer? Free radicals. The older you are, the more free radicals you will likely have.
Cancer can be caused by free radicals damaging cells, leading to cell mutation.
Prevention is the cure for now. I read an article that said sulforaphane was found to be effective in preventing cancer, and in inhibiting cancer growth in vitro and also in some experimental animals. Sulforaphane can be found in cruciferous vegetables, broccoli being the most mainstream example.
Sulforaphane
|
We already know enormous amounts of information about how to prevent those things. All the best tricks are the ones we've known for ages like "Work out regularly!" and "Don't become a waddling lard sack!".
Perhaps you are speaking of selective halting of the aging process? That's a bit far off. It would be a hell of a lot easier to just invent immortality, which is far too fantastic for many people to take seriously, although there is some research into telomerase going on that is rather interesting.
|
On December 18 2013 04:27 hp.Shell wrote:What about aging increases the risk for cancer? Free radicals. The older you are, the more free radicals you will likely have.Cancer can be caused by free radicals damaging cells, leading to cell mutation. Prevention is the cure for now. I read an article that said sulforaphane was found to be effective in preventing cancer, and in inhibiting cancer growth in vitro and also in some experimental animals. Sulforaphane can be found in cruciferous vegetables, broccoli being the most mainstream example. Sulforaphane
This would be like saying rhinovirus causes the common cold. Yes, it does; but it is far from the only thing that causes it. DNA mutation can occur without free radicals causing it, more telomerase activity has been linked to higher risks for cancer, some viruses can alter DNA sequences and activity or create oncogenes.
Even in the case of free radicals, cancer frequency does not increase at a linear rate. Odds of cancer extremely low below about age 30-45, then increases rapidly into ones 70s. I'd be more inclined to think more radical damage over time would be more linear, unless there is some reason to believe free radical damage also increases rapidly as you get older...which would be another reason to better understand aging.
Perhaps you are speaking of selective halting of the aging process? That's a bit far off. It would be a hell of a lot easier to just invent immortality, which is far too fantastic for many people to take seriously, although there is some research into telomerase going on that is rather interesting.
Yes, or at least understanding what is is about aging that makes the morbidity of these diseases increase so much more rapidly as one gets into middle age and beyond.
To give an idea of the line of thinking: Imagine telomeres are the main cause of cancer (this isn't likely the case, but bear with me), and that those with active telomerase (lengthens telomeres) are more likely to develop cancer. If we research and discover also that telomerase activity increases as one ages...then you have a way to look at preventing cancer, via treatments that would lessen or stop telomerase activity. This is the sort of thinking I am talking about.
It would be a hell of a lot easier to just invent immortality, which is far too fantastic for many people to take seriously
+ Show Spoiler [Immortality Discussion] +Spoilering because I don't want to de rail the main topic, but find this discussion interesting as well.
Immortality, depending on how you look at it, is not exceptionally far off or fantastic. There are a few key "IFs" that need to met for it to become realistic, but many of these ifs seem very probable. Examples would be things like the ability to use stem cells effectively both to regenerate organs, and to work as a vector for bringing in correct genes (viral transfer works in theory, but cannot transmit much genetic information...too little "bandwidth" if you will).
The other is the issue of nanotechnology, which it seems quite likely is possible. Get those two things up and running, and you could quickly have the technology in place for immortality. The only remaining thing left is to understand what exactly one needs to "fix" to reverse and prevent aging and you are there, and there isn't anything in physics that says "immortality is impossible according to laws of universe", nor is there any biological reason to suspect we cannot stop aging. In fact, there is already biological precedent in the form of organisms that do not age.
Under the right conditions, it really isn't hard to imagine that we could "beat" aging, even in the 21st century. It's contingent on aforementioned technologies developing at the pace we expect them to; but it's a definite possibility that people living today might also be around to usher in the new millennium.
|
On December 18 2013 03:51 L_Master wrote:This IS going to be an issue at some point. Obviously if we start talking lifespans of 1000+ years it's going to be an immediate issue. But even at current rate of population increase and general medical increases...it won't be too long before we are truly facing the issue of control population size or deplete resources. In other words, we are gonna face that issue any way. Better medical care is just going to make that happen faster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
Not really, one out of many theories.
Also, there is not "the" cancer and "the" trigger. Cancer is triggered randomly (stochastic desease), you won't ever be able to completely rule it out or prevent it. Hence curing "the" cancer seems more rational.
The process of aging is being researched, as well as why they can cause diseases. Seems more like you did not find resources, papers or institutions yet.
If you did, I don't quite get the point of the blog.
|
I'm a Biosciences Researcher currently working on blindness. My sponsoring charity (an ageing charity) is forever pointing out that putting money into ageing research improves the quality of later life far more than practically any other investment.
Why doesn't more money get put into it? Because its not a "sexy" research field. Research priorities are not determined by where the money can be most effective. Its prioritised by what looks good and can produce lots of papers. Hell, my sponsor isn't even supporting any new projects after this year; instead they're going to contract out specific pieces of work to companies. Why? Because it means they can focus away from pure science and onto applied stuff, which looks better on their newsletter to donators.
And on a side note Cancer is going to be damn near impossible to prevent or "cure" however much research is put into it; just way too many variables. The best you can do is treat it after the fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
